Last night's debate was a good debate in the sense that no one wasted any more time trying to go after each other. My sense is since no one whose done it - had their poll numbers go up.

How did each of them do you ask?

Romney was Romney. But then again Romney's always Romney.Clear, focused. Gave straight answers. His only gaffe; analysts pretty much ignored about his years of marriage (25/42).

The spotlight was on Herman Cain to give his one, only and definitive the allegations against me are bogus statement to the public watching.

He did it. On the other hand; if a smoking gun exists like a stain on a dress; pictures; a used condom wrapper; hair fibers, blood or saliva;

His campaign is completely over along side Rick Perry who couldn't pull his tongue out of his mouth fast enough; or get a complete answer straight in his head before saying it.

Like most analysts; I felt sorry for him. He's the only other candidate in the race with two pennies to rub together yet he's a complete failure. Calling him an empty suit would be a compliment I don't think he even deserves now, much less then.

Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Michelle Beauty Queen and Newt all did well with questions. No surprises, no gaffes. But probably no increase in their poll numbers either.

With two/less than two months before the all the talk is over and the voting starts; I don't know how anyone can make the case that they are better than Mitt Romney to go up against Obama.

You have to make the case that you have the money; the organizational setup to go along with the bright ideas floating around in your brain. Put conservative ideology on the back burner. Because if you run through the country waving the flag of conservative republicanism you become just another George W. Bush carbon copy.

Next thing you know you're giving a concession speech about how wonderful an experience it was running for president and in the end we have to suffer through another four years of nonsense.

Over the next debates; I'd suggest Rick Perry take himself up on that offer to stay off the stage. Do some town hall meetings. Make commercials. Or be the only one up there with a visual aide to help sort out one's thoughts.

It should tell you something that the media is taking a hands-off approach to Romney. He is Barry Obama as sure as Barry Obama is George W. Bush on steroids. Personally, I would love to see Newt Gingrich have the opportunity to turn Obama inside out in a series of debates, but I have my doubts that it can happen.

It's not as if it's going to matter anyway. The 51% of American households now financially beholden to the Federal government may, indeed, give us four more years of Barry O., but he'll be little more than an angry guy sitting in an expensive chair once the Republicans take the Senate.

I personally enjoyed the GOP debate on CNBC last night. Those particular moderators are very sharp. They understand money, fiscal policy etc, and are used to thinking on their feet.

The poster who started this discussion seems a bit confused when he wrote about a smoking gun regarding Cain. Cain is fighting accusations of sexual harassment...not of having extramarital sex while married to his wife Gloria. The items he wrote about are not "smoking guns" for that offense.

Cain, in his 5pm press conference, with his very high profile lawyer by his side, and with notes he normally never uses, has denied ever even meeting the first woman who put a public face on this issue. Totally denied ever even meeting her. He did admit remembering one woman it has been confirmed has a confidential settlement. But could only remember one issue in that case. Cain had plenty of time to get access to the files regarding any complaints and settlements paid on his behalf. If he did not, he was so he could have plausible deniability with the media and public at large.

He also quoted his wife of over 40 years, Gloria, but she was nowhere to be seen. That could mean something. Maybe his wife chooses not to lend her credibility to something she knows will help her husband but does not want to.

The boos from the audience when asked a question about this issue were expected by the moderators. Look at the source. But I wonder how many women in that crowd have been sexually harassed??? Odds are quite a few.

Rick Perry is just simply painful to watch at this point. And Friday night there is yet another debate. Issue...foreign policy.

Newt is waffling between the actually intelligent man he really is, and the grumpy old uncle personality that appeals to the right wing part of the GOP. It is like a tightrope act he is performing. He can go toe to toe with smart people. But then he reverts to behavior that will appeal to the right wingers.

The other candidates are just playing out their hands at this point.

It truly is Romney's to lose. In fact, he almost seemed likeable when he stumbled over how long he was married. The GOP if they were smart, would convince the very conservative subset, that the only one who has the money and a chance at the independents is Romney.

But as you wrote, Sister, regarding Romney, "Bring it On". It may be a lot of GOTV, but the GOP are really looking at 2016 behind closed doors.

Are you referring to the myth romney who is worth 250 million dollars who claims to be an unemployed, middle class citizen and who said that government workers are making more money than he is ? BTW how many jobs did he outsource to other countries ? BRING HIM OWN !Posted by Sistersledge

The poster who started this discussion seems a bit confused when he wrote about a smoking gun regarding Cain. Posted by andiejen

The comparison I make between Herman Cain and Bill Clinton is simple.Both have a relatively easy time denying allegations so long as no one can really prove what they did.

For Clinton the proof was in a stain.

Herman Cain's poll numbers are dropping because you can't get away with brushing off your shoulder like dandruff; allegations that you did something inappropriate - over the next three long months until people start voting.

Yeah these women might be liberal democratic plants. Faking stories just to get attention in the media. Yeah it can very well be all be a bogus set up.

But the damage has been done on two fronts. The allegations by themselves and his poor handling of his initial responses. He had the right idea; go on as many talk shows - morning noon and evening. Make your case.

But his execution was terrible. First it was no, then maybe, then maybe yes but I don't recall. Now it's probably but I can't remember very well so it doesn't matter.

My point is that if a woman came forward with " evidence " and wrapped it up under yet another accusation of harrassment/assault/rape.

It's over.

Withdraw from the race and go bury yourself in a hole deep enough that even the political historians won't even find your bones.

In Response to Re: Last night's debate on CNBC. : The comparison I make between Herman Cain and Bill Clinton is simple. Both have a relatively easy time denying allegations so long as no one can really prove what they did. For Clinton the proof was in a stain. Herman Cain's poll numbers are dropping because you can't get away with brushing off your shoulder like dandruff; allegations that you did something inappropriate - over the next three long months until people start voting. Yeah these women might be liberal democratic plants. Faking stories just to get attention in the media. Yeah it can very well be all be a bogus set up. But the damage has been done on two fronts. The allegations by themselves and his poor handling of his initial responses. He had the right idea; go on as many talk shows - morning noon and evening. Make your case. But his execution was terrible. First it was no , then mayb e, then maybe yes but I don't recall . Now it's probably but I can't remember very well so it doesn't matter . My point is that if a woman came forward with " evidence " and wrapped it up under yet another accusation of harrassment/assault/rape. It's over. Withdraw from the race and go bury yourself in a hole deep enough that even the political historians won't even find your bones.Posted by WriterXT

Trouble is sexual harassment generally has no physical evidence. Unless there is a tape recorder or an independent witness you are not going to find it. But there are several women involved and money was paid out. That is pretty good circumstantial evidence that something untoward happened.